Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 302, in

clause 62, page 36, line 10, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 235, in

clause 62, page 36, line 10, leave out 'two days' and insert '48 hours'.

Amendment No. 316, in

clause 62, page 36, line 10, leave out 'two days' and insert 'one day'.

Amendment No. 203, in

clause 62, page 36, line 12, after 'club', insert

'unless the right to become members without prior nomination or application is thereby completely excluded,'.

Amendment No. 317, in

clause 62, page 36, line 14, leave out 'two days' and insert 'one day'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

There is a little confusion owing to of the number of amendments that were tabled over Easter. We have tabled a range of amendments that refer to different hours, days and weeks and I will try to make some sense of them.

Essentially, these are probing amendments. We want to elicit the Government's reasons behind some of the periods of time that appear in clause 62. It is my understanding that the interval of two days is lifted from the Licensing Act 1964: presumably, that has worked reasonably well. One of our amendments changes that interval to 48 hours because in some circumstances two days might not give the appropriate authority sufficient time—for example, if the application came towards the end of a day. The amendment changes two days to 48 working hours, which should enable the necessary work to be completed properly.

Amendment No. 203 inserts the following phrase after ''club'' in line 12:

''unless the right to become members without prior nomination or application is thereby completely excluded.''

That is a form of words that seeks to make some sense of this subsection, which refers to ''Condition 2''. I think that that is lifted from the 1964 Act. It gives rise to a strange interpretation in club rules around the country. The original legislation is unclear, and we do not think that the new wording in subsection (3) makes it clearer for those who run these clubs and have to set down their rules and regulations. Amendment No. 203 seeks to clarify and simplify the meaning and wording of the provision, while maintaining the prevention of instant membership to a club to partake of a drink, which is the reason for the two-day delay. This amendment would prevent the need for fairly incomprehensible sentiments being incorporated into a club's constitution. It would lead to a slightly

elongated subsection, but at least it would provide greater clarification of what is intended.

Amendment No. 302 probes why two days cannot be extended to four days, if the reason is to prohibit anyone from quickly joining a club to enjoy the benefits of its alcohol licence.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to clarify that because I was confused by it. Could he tease out a bit more why four days and two days appear in the same set of amendments?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I prefaced my remarks by saying that there had been a certain amount of confusion over the Easter recess and we have a strong combination of alternative amendments. As they are probing amendments, that is not worth getting too upset about. Their main purpose is to get the Minister to justify why he has set down the two-day period.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

We have moved on to the part of the Bill that deals with clubs. The Government recognise that there is much to be valued in this country's club movement. Different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises; that is why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and guests on premises for which a club premises certificate is in force are subject to a different regime with lighter controls.

The clause sets out five conditions that a club must satisfy to be a qualifying club and be eligible for a club premises certificate. It is important that the conditions are strong enough to enable a clear distinction to be drawn between bona fide members clubs and commercial undertakings. The hon. Gentleman is hedging around that simple question.

The first condition in subsection (2) is that

''under the rules of the club persons may not . . . be admitted to membership, or . . . as candidates for membership, to any of the privileges of membership, without an interval of at least two days between their nomination and or application . . . and their admission.''

As the hon. Gentleman told us, that has been the case since 1964 and it has been that way for as long as I can remember.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster, Conservative)

On gaming, there has classically been a 24-hour rule, although I appreciate that that is all subject to review and that we are dealing with a different regime. Will the Government try to introduce some consistency? The 48-hour time limit is arbitrary, whether or not it is sensible, whereas the 24-hour rule has been the norm for joining large-scale gaming and gambling clubs. What is the rationale behind maintaining the 48-hour limit, rather than increasing it to 96 hours, as suggested in one amendment, or reducing it to 24 hours, which is common in casinos in central London?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the Committee that we are reviewing gaming and gambling law with a view to introducing some radical changes soon. Under the proposed gambling reforms,

bingo clubs and casinos that hold operator's licences and specialised forms of premises licences would no longer be subject to a 24 or 48-hour rule. However, non-profit-making members clubs, such as those that would hold club premises certificates under what will become the Licensing Act, would enjoy certain exemptions relating to lower levels of gambling and prizes, as long as the 48-hour rule on membership, among other things, is applied. There is nothing inconsistent about the two policies: both offer forms of privilege and exemption, subject to certain qualifying conditions and both have the 48-hour rule in common. Nevertheless, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to the fact that there are some big changes in the offing for gaming and gambling.

Under clause 62(5) the fourth general condition that must be satisfied in order for a club to meet the criteria for qualifying club activities is that it must have at least 25 members. Amendment No. 235—

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with the next group of amendments.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I have here amendments Nos. 302, 235, 316, 203 and 317.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to No. 204, which is the next amendment.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I am sorry, Mr. Benton, I need some guidance. I thought we were considering clause 62, amendments Nos. 302, 235, 316, 203 and 317.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. That is correct. I do not know whether I added to the confusion by mentioning amendment No. 204 at the outset, which I should not have done. That will be the next sequence of business.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Would it be in order for me to deal with amendment No. 235?

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Yes.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Benton—a great mist descended then.

Amendment No. 235 would replace the requirement of at least two days' notice between nomination or application for membership and admission with one of 48 hours. The interval of two days has not been plucked from the air. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) reminded us, it has been carried over from the present law as set out in section 41 of the Licensing Act 1964. The amendment would substitute a minimum delay of 48 hours for the two days that the law requires at present. The hon. Gentleman's amendment does not mention 48 working hours. It merely states ''48 hours'', which has nothing to do with the hours that the licensing authority may be working. The two days in the Bill is about the period of notice that an applicant must give before being admitted to membership and a licensing authority is not involved in that.

On the face of it, this might seem a fairly harmless adjustment, but we take the view that it is important not to weaken or undermine the distinction between bona fide clubs and others. The two-day test in the

present law is well established, and we are not persuaded that a compelling case has been made for disturbing it. In our view, the additional inconvenience of a two-day interval is a reasonable price to pay for maintaining an important legal distinction.

I now turn to amendments Nos. 302 and 316. There may be a case for the Opposition Members to put their heads together and—as I tried to express as gently as I could—make up their minds about whether they want two days, 48 hours or four days. Amendment No. 316 would do completely the opposite of any of those options, by reducing the period to one day. I am sure that if the Committee had a clear idea of what the Opposition wanted, we could be a bit more helpful—but I fear that the arguments would be the same. Two days reflects the existing position; it is fair and reasonable and offers the necessary degree of protection to all concerned.

Amendment No. 203 would make it clear that the rules of a club may prohibit a person from becoming a member of it without prior nomination or application. However, it would leave unaltered the position currently established by subsection (3) that if the rules of the club allow a person to become a member without prior nomination or application, those rules must also provide that such an individual may not be admitted to the privileges of membership without an interval of at least two days between their becoming a member and their being admitted. That period would be reduced to one day by amendment No. 317, which we must resist on grounds similar to those on which we resist amendments Nos. 302 and 306. Therefore, amendment No. 203 would not have any material effect on the provisions of the Bill, and it is unnecessary. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents a club's rules from prohibiting someone from becoming a member without prior nomination or application; that is a matter for the club.

I assure the Committee that in this respect the Bill reflects the provisions of the current legislation on registered clubs, so no difficulty should be caused for clubs that currently operate satisfactorily. I hope that after those reassurances, this group of amendments will not be pressed.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. I prefaced my remarks by saying that there had been some confusion, and I apologise to the Committee for that.

Amendment No. 203 is still hanging up there, because the Minister did not shoot it down in flames. He said that it would help clubs whose rules say categorically that a prior application and nomination is needed before someone can become a member. The current wording of the Bill, which is lifted from the Licensing Act 1964, simply causes difficulty for clubs that insist on prior application and nomination, because they then have to write in if, for whatever reason, someone comes along and gets signed up on the night—and such people still have to wait two days before they can have a drink.

The wording of amendment No. 203 would add to the Bill: it would not detract from it, but would clarify the situation and help clubs that have in their statutes

a requirement for prior application and nomination, which is the proper way to do things. As for preventing any abuse of the system—for example, people simply walking in, signing up and having a drink at the bar—to insist on prior nomination and application on the form provided by the club would be more watertight than what is in the 1964 Act, which the Minister wants to include verbatim in the Bill. As he said some kind words about amendment No. 203, perhaps he could ease a little towards our position by examining our suggestion further, with a view to including it.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I always examine with meticulous care the suggestions offered by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly do so in this case.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 204, in

clause 62, page 36, leave out line 18.

The amendment would simply delete clause 62(5), which states:

''Condition 4 is that the club has at least 25 members.''

The amendment would prevent clubs with fewer than 25 members from being at a disadvantage. If such a club wishes to acquire a premises licence, why should it be prevented from doing so? What is magic about the number 25? Surely it is for the club to decide what its membership should be on the basis of its financial situation, and clause 62(5) is needless.

I am aware that there is a limit of 25 members in existing legislation, but there must be a number of small clubs in villages—for example, bowls clubs—that would find that difficult to reach. Even the Ramsgate croquet club—to mention another distinguished club—might find it difficult to reach the limit, and if a club does not have 25 members, it cannot register as a club and enjoy the accompanying benefits. Ramsgate club would not be allowed a licence, so it might be entertained by the bigger Margate croquet club, which was mentioned this morning, and which could have a bar and be able to offer drinks, but it would not be able to reciprocate. Why is there an arbitrary limit of 25?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Could it be that the Government did not intend such a small, unincorporated association or club to be licensed at all?

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That could be a better plan, but I do not suppose that the Government will want to go down that road either.

The amendment would help smaller clubs, of which there are many throughout the country. Under the Bill, no club with fewer than 25 members can apply for a bar licence and serve drinks after a game, and that is an unnecessary restriction, bearing in mind that many such clubs would not cause any problems for the police or the local community. In any event, with such small numbers involved there is unlikely ever to be any cause for concern.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I remind the Committee that the reason why the Bill preserves the special arrangements

for clubs and does not require them to obtain a full premises licence, as other establishments must do, is because they have a special role to play in the community. The minimum membership requirement also recognises that community role. Without it, there would be nothing to stop a small number of people circumventing the normal requirements of licensing law, and setting themselves up as a qualified club. Clubs with fewer than 25 members can be recognised clubs, and apply for a premises licence—

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

At an even greater cost to the small club.

Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend made the point that I was about to make. We are in danger of imposing a greater regulatory burden on smaller clubs than on larger clubs.

Mr Martin Linton (Battersea, Labour)

Conservative clubs, perhaps.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

That is a cruel remark, although I know that in Wales and Scotland, for example, the membership of Conservative clubs has shrunk dramatically. In fact, to depart from the script for a moment, I must say that I was 19 years old before I discovered that the ''Con club'' in Hirwaun was really the Conservative club. I thought that it was something to do with snooker, because it had the two best tables in the valley. I never met a Conservative until I was well into adolescence. Even now, the Hirwaun Conservative club has at least 25 members.

I do not recognise the description of the struggling clubs. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire about the ubiquitous Ramsgate croquet club, but I must undertake some research to find out whether it exists. I am sure that it does, but the minimum membership of 25 people also reflects the provisions for registered clubs under the 1964 Act, and they seem to work perfectly well.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Let us take a hypothetical case of a club with 25 members. It would fulfil the requirements of clause 62(5) and, as the Minister said, it would be entitled to the benefits that qualifying clubs would receive under the Bill. Let us say that the club has a bar and a licence under the club provision. What would happen if one of its members dropped dead? It would then have only 24 members. Does all activity cease? Will the bar have to close down? The club would probably whip someone in off the street and sign him up. The other members would be able to drink, but the guy who had just signed up would not be able to do so for two days. Such matters are worth thinking about.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

That would have to happen the day before the club applied to be a qualifying club, and the hon. Gentleman knows that such incidents would rarely occur. I am reliably informed that the Bill gives the club a three-month period of grace. If a club with only 25 members, one of whom has suddenly dropped dead, cannot attract another member within three months, it really is on its last legs. The rest of the membership could be in danger of dropping dead, too.

Mr Bob Blizzard (Waveney, Labour)

I can cite the example of another sort of Con club in Lowestoft, which I visited for the first time on Saturday night—the Constitutional Club. It is a most select and private club with 30 members, and it has realised that if its membership went much below 30, it would be difficult to continue anyway. Twenty-five is a good figure for membership; it is fair to say that it would apply to any club that was to remain in existence.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I agree, and I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire withdraws his amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am reassured by the Minister's saying that the Bill will enable a club to continue for three months if it does not reach the membership requirement. There may be other requirements, but I have not found such a provision.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I can inform the hon. Gentleman that he will find the provision in clause 88.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Minister. In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.